Those of us who live too far from Utah to attend in person can get streaming
internet video of the two days of presentations. I have attended or watched
several years of the conferences, and it is a feast for both mind and spirit. It
is also one of the best sources for really stimulating books on these topcs.

What’s unique about the LDS obsession with “defending the
faith” is that it’s less about vindicating basic Christian precepts
than Joseph Smith. That’s a lot for Mormons to explain. Mormonism is
becoming accepted as a valid belief system. But its claims to absolute primacy
come at a time when Christian denominationalism is moving towards embracing
diversity and an ecumenical spirit.

"A revelation given to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon on Dec. 1, 1831, at
Hiram, Ohio, commands the two men to respond both publicly and privately to
critics and enemies of the still-young Church ..."

“Let
them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord,” counseled the
divine voice. “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you — there is no
weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; and if any man lift his voice
against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time” (see Doctrine and
Covenants 71:7-10)."

This is a true and correct inspired
statement of both JS and SR - who became JS's 1st counselor in the church
presidency on March 8, 1833 and his rightful successor after June 27, 1844 (see
D&C 90:6). Both men were speaking prophetically of The Church of Jesus
Christ (WHQ: Monongahela, Pennsylvania), the only true succession of the
restored gospel on the face of the earth today.

I grew up in an Evangelical and Catholic background. I am now a convert to the
LDS faith for 20 years. In a time when many young members are leaving my root
institutions, I find great relief in the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. FAIRMormon is an excellent resource to find both sides of
issues explored intelligently.

Whether a believer or nonbeliever in
the LDS faith, knowing for sure what the tendencies are from more than one
perspective will give a person the ability to make an informed choice, and have
credibility when discussing topics of concern.

We must be reading different essays, or you are seeing
things as pessimistically as possible. For example, the recent essay on the Book
of Abraham in the Gospel Topics section on the church's website is no
contradiction what has been taught in the church in the past.

To
confirm, you can read a small sample of Ensign magazine articles regarding the
Book of Abraham the church as published over nearly the last 40 years:

1) June 1985 - BYU Professor Tracing Path of Book of Abraham Papyri (News of
the Church section)

2) July 1992 - Research and Perspectives: Abraham
in Ancient Egyptian Texts

3) March 1976 - I Have a Question

In sum, the church's essay on the Book of Abraham in the Gospel Topics
section just happens is bit more visible and accessible. However, the
church's position on how the Book of Abraham came to us hasn't moved a
bit over time. No contradictions.

I'm very excited for this upcoming conference. I've attended every one
except for the first conference and it's one of the highlights of my
summer. You won't be disappointed; the line of speakers this year is
awesome!

Specific examples of "the FAIR boys'"
"mocking style" would probably be useful to the leadership of FairMormon
-- the actual name of the organization, as Professor Peterson points out in the
article -- which includes "girls" as well as "boys."

Of course, "apologetics" are pretty much meant only for the faithful
anyway but it's interesting that virtually the ONLY people who find Mormon
apologetics persuasive are Mormons who already belief and have pyscho-emotional
investment and commitment.

Everybody has the exact same body of
evidence.

Yet it is only believers who interpret that evidence in the
affirmative. And not even all of them -- certainly the majority of Mormons who
are inactive (70& church-wide according to Martinich & Stewart) and
those who have left altogether in an apostasy not seen since Kirtland (publicly
acknowledged by Marlin K. Jensen) include intelligent, honest people who left
precisely because of that evidence.

The common evidence DOES drive
de-conversion -- from Belief to Unbelief.

On the other hand,
virtually nobody converts from Unbelief to Belief based on that evidence.

If prior belief is REQUIRED before concluding in the affirmative can it
really be argued that there is honest intellectual and critical equivalence in
evaluating the evidence?

In the end it seems not the evidence at all
but the commitment to the cultural belief that common varieties of religious
experience are a divine testament of truth.

I believe RanchHand is referring to what
the church taught about the Book of Abraham from the time Joseph Smith bought
the papyri to the mid 1960's. There is no doubt when reading Smith's
own words about what he was translating that he believed it was performing a
literal translation of papyri written by Abraham himself. That was the
church's position until the 60's when some of the papyri (although yes
not all of it) turned up. So of course your articles from 1976 onward won't
be contradicted by the current essay. However, anyone who can't see that
the essay contradicts Joseph Smiths own words is fooling themselves.

Actual data as to how many are convinced by Mormon
apologetics and how many aren't, and for what reasons, would be helpful.
So would solid evidence that Mormon apologists intend their work only for those
who already believe.

Do you have access to such data, or are you
merely sharing your personal feelings?

@Craig Clark, Boulder CO -- "What’s unique about the LDS obsession
with “defending the faith” is that it’s less about vindicating
basic Christian precepts than Joseph Smith."

You're right --
Mormons pretty much silently and uncritically default to basic Christian
precepts: "We believe the Bible is the word of God..."

"Higher Criticism" is discouraged in Mormonism while the church and
Mormon intellectuals pretty much leave basic Christian apologetics up to the
Evangelicals. "The Bible is the word of God" (whether or not translated
correctly) is simply an un-examined belief.

The more I read and
studied the Bible -- both OT and NT but mostly the NT -- the more it became
clear to me the whole thing was a purely human invention. But, if a person could
come to believe the OT, they could safely reject the NT, and Jesus as messiah
and savior, and all of Christianity.

In the end, it's the reason
I left Mormonism and all of Christianity at the same time.

Exploring
historical-critical Bible studies it became more clear to me what I had
intuitively sensed then and why. It was and is liberating.

In the case of the Book of Abraham, what supposed
contradictions do you think RanchHand was referring to? Can you or RanchHand
clarify?

There is still no contradiction with the current essay and
what Joseph Smith and others said pre 1960's. The church still believes and
teaches the book came just like Joseph Smith indicated -- a translation achieved
through revelation from (a) document(s) whose author was Abraham ("by his
own hand").

Here are some references:

1) The essay
itself - "The book originated with Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith
translated beginning in 1835."

2) 2013 Edition of Scriptures -
Intro to Book of Abraham - "A Translation of some ancient Records that have
fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while
he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon
papyrus."

FAIR also has a lot of good commentary on the subject
of the Book of Abraham. Have you ever checked it out? Apparently, it will also
be part of the upcoming conference. Very nice.

P.S. - Read the
section heading for D&C 7. Translation of a parchment by John. Very
interesting concept.

I have benefited so much from the previous Fair conference talks, learning more
about the wonderful gospel of Jesus Christ. Last year I was able to access the
streaming, and. I will again this year. My hope is that next year I will get to
intend in person. I highly recommend the conference--even long-distance it is
great!q

Most LDS apologists declare up front that in the end, evidence is not what makes
people believe. That is correct. They are not so much out to prove the things
of the Gospel, as to clear away some of the potentially contrary evidence, so
people are not put in the position of having to choose between reason and faith.

The idea is that if the evidence is in "equipoise" (I think
that's Terryl Givens' word) a person can simply choose to believe, or
not.

I'm not sure it quite gets you to "equipoise,"
though, to show that a thing has neither been conclusively proven nor disproven.
That can be true even if the evidence is 90% for and 10% against, or vice
versa. "Evidence in equipoise" means that the evidence is 50-50,
neither case being stronger than the other.

And as ingenious as some
of the apologists' arguments are, I don't find they get over that 50%
threshold in many cases. They were in fact one of the main reasons I might be
fairly called, as one FAIR gentleman once called me, a "cultural Mormon
stinking up the place." If theirs was the best case that could be made....